Comparing Townhomes In Denver

Posted on: April 27th, 2010 | 13 Comments

This is Day 98 of the Slow Home Project, and we need you to join us in our quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in nine North American cities in nine months. This week we are analyzing townhomes in Denver and today we are asking everyone to continue posting townhouse projects to the site. The more data points we have the better.

In today’s “Which House Should I Buy” we are comparing two town house units from the same development in Denver, Colorado to see which would be the better real estate choice.

The project is called “The Glen Arm Brownstone’s” and the first unit is in Building 1 and is 1778 sq ft with 3 bedrooms and a roof terrace.

The second unit is in Building 3 and is 1639 sq feet and it too is three bedroom with a roof top terrace.

The units scored very similarly on the Slow Home Test although they lostpoints in different categories – click on the images to to the left read the detailed results.

The units in Building 1 are wider and as such, have a different stair configuration with a 45 degree angle. Matthew really does not like the stair and feels that this compromises some of the interior spaces. John, on the other hand, feels that the use of the angles in this plan are well resolved, except in the bathroom spaces.

We would like to hear what the Slow Home viewers think. Do you agree with John or Matthew? Do you think the geometry of the stair in Building 1 is an acceptable design solution or does it cause problems?

Also, we need you to continue and find town house projects in the Denver area all this week and post them to the site using the “Add A House To The Project” link. We need your help to find and evaluate as many projects as you can using the Slow Home test!

Join us tomorrow for our Design Project exercise where Matthew will be trying his hand re-designing a problematic main floor of a town house project found here in Denver!

  • MollyK

    Good morning everyone,
    I scored 2 units from Building 2 of The Glen Arm yesterday morning and actually reviewed the 2 units chosen for today’s exercise. The big difference between my score and John & Matthew’s score appears to be Siting.
    I’m completely confused (still) about the Siting category on the Slow Home test. I looked extensively at satellite and streetview imagery of the surrounding blocks and found the majority of the adjacent area to be paved parking lots. According to Google Map, the only decent siting is on the east side of Glenarm Place…tree-lined sidewalks, residential houses (both single-family and multi-family units) that are not bad-looking, and a nicely landscaped elementary school directly across from the proposed site. This means that certain units will have a good “front” view while others will not.
    Is this not part of what we are supposed to be looking for in order to score the Siting category?
    Also, the view from the “back” of all the units is of other units and the interior parking lot. My understanding from the tutorial on Siting given last month was that viewing a parking lot was not very “slow” and would negatively impact the score in this category.
    Is there some criteria I’m missing that would negate the questionable views and allow the category to get the points? This is the most confusing of the heavily “weighted” categories. I don’t think a potential home buyer would understand the criteria based on the current verbiage. Perhaps changing the wording would clarify the criteria better.

  • John Brown

    Mollyk,
    You bring up a very good point about the siting for these two units. I have to confess that Matthew and I did not look at the google map.

    Views are certainly one component of siting. Another is whether there are any adjacent uses or buildings that will disrupt the residence. This is on a smaller scale and relates to the units on each side. In this case the repetitive nature of the townhome plan means that like spaces will be situated opposite like spaces across the party wall and there won’t be any noise issues. Another big issue is whether there is any overlooking from other units or overshadowing of exterior spaces. There isn’t in this case and the “galley” site plan with rows of units on either side of a driveway is usually pretty good at maintaining at least a minimum of good siting.

    I would still argue that both units should get the siting points on the Slow Home Test because there aren’t any glaring problems. Your more detailed analysis, however, is critical for the second stage of analysis in this segment because the Slow Home Score did not reveal a clear winner. Looking at a subtle issue like the quality of the view from the main living space could very well tip the balance in favor of one of the units.

    Thank you for bringing up the confusion with this category. We will certainly revisit it (and the wording) in the coming weeks to see if we can clarify it more.

    Thanks also for looking at the google maps for this project. Your insight is most valuable and helpful.

  • Eric S.

    We’re currently experiencing trouble with the network provider that handles our maps. We’re hoping to get this resolved ASAP. Thanks for your patience.

    Regards,
    Eric S.

  • Eric S.

    Hi Everybody,

    Map service has been restored. Thanks for your patience.

    Regards,
    Eric S.

  • MollyK

    John,
    Thanks for the additional information. It is still fuzzy to me but I understand more than I did at 7AM this morning. I appreciate that you would consider some ‘rewording’. I think it might help.

  • Terri

    I have issues with the powder rooms in both of these units. Having to walk through the living room to use it in Building One and having to be right next to a kitchen/dining area in Building Three are both major problems, IMO.

    So I’ve made my decision based on this element. I choose Building Three, because it causes less of a traffic issue with the powder room at one side across from the kitchen. Also, the roof deck includes a powder room, which seems necessary given the private bathrooms for each bedroom on the next floor door.
    In Building One you’d have to go down two flights of stairs AND THEN traipse all through the living room to get to a public powder room. Or…like Dallas, you might instead have your guests enter your bedroom to get to your private bath.

  • MollyK

    Slow Home test results:
    Bldg 1: 17
    Bldg 3: 18

    The scores didn’t point to one unit over another. So for me the deciding factor was space. The narrowness of Bldg 3 restricted the furniture layout in the living area as well as circulation in the kitchen/dining area. Bldg 1 had extra ‘room’ on the K/L/D floor that made furniture layout more flexible, even with the odd (and not pretty) staircase. Also, the 2-car garage was a bonus. I chose Bldg 1.

    The biggest travesty of Bldg 1 was the absence of a powder room on the terrace…hard to believe. Yet, it was the only standout element of concern in that unit.
    In Bldg 3, I disliked the narrow living room and the fact that the focal point was shared by the fireplace and the stair landing. There was really no other way to arrange furniture because of the narrow space. I also did not like the circulation pattern from the U kitchen to the dining table. However, I thought Bldg 3 had better bedroom layouts, especially the Master closet.

  • MollyK

    OK,
    Just finished watching John & Matthew’s choices and I think they mixed up the building # with the square footage. So just to clarify…

    Matthew,
    You picked the smaller unit (Bldg 3) because of the stairs.
    John,
    You picked the larger unit (Bldg 1) because of the study.

    Matthew, what if we put a folding screen against the stairs that face the living area. Something to match the decor of the room. Wonder why “they” (whoever they are) decided to place the stairs in that position? Surely another configuration could have worked.

  • Mid America Mom

    For me it was not too hard of a pick. For me the living floor, kitchen- dining- living room, is what is most important. And the 1778 sq ft unit with the “angled stair” I think is the most slow in this regard.

    First it has an efficient L kitchen layout that passes the butt test. The other would not pass the test (the aisle is too narrow from sink to stove) and I dislike that the sink is facing toward the pantry and bathroom door and not on the peninsula facing the dining area (they would have to stretch the kitchen a bit more maybe 2-3 feet). Secondly the angled unit living space does not have hallway type circulation running through it. One thing I like to say is that the main living space is a destination- not a stop to somewhere. The 1639 unit has a stair going to the bedrooms in the middle of the space. I would not appreciate having someone entering the space to do so. For the angled stair plan the dining I think is flexible. If I choose to ditch my grand piano I can always put a dining table there and maybe two nice chairs near the deck so people can sit and chat with the cook. The other unit feels too tight with the bar stools and door to the patio. And lastly regarding the 1/2 bath. I am fine with smaller versions of these and the placement near the living, but door hidden away, is more desirable to me than right next and opening to the dining and kitchen space.

    Mid America Mom

  • Manolo

    I have to agree with MAM. The wider unit, in spite of its angled stair has a much better proportion for two of the most important spaces – the living and dining rooms. In the narrower, 1639 sqft unit the living space is questionable with the circulation route to the stair being right there. The dining room is a bit crushed into the corner, and is a bit awkward to get to. I also think that the powder room situation is good for neither, but at least in the case of the larger unit, there’s space to rearrange things into the future to make it work properly. I don’t think the narrower unit has that luxury. So yeah, I choose the 1778 sq ft unit.

  • Matthew North

    Molly K – yes – I chose the smaller unit – I think the folding screen would serve as a reminder to me of the stairs they are trying to hide! I really took issue with the geometry of the stairs in the wider unit. I know John thought they worked well, but I really feel the designer then relied on the angle to finish the design in the rest of the unit and I do not like the bathroom layouts with the angled walls and I am not a huge fan of the triangular dining space although I can see John’s point that it would be a pleasant place in the house. Just call me rigid, but angles – particularly the old 45 degree version – are just an eyesore to me.

  • Aaron

    The angles in both annoy me, not just in the first one. I don’t know why they have to be there in the first place. On this site there are many many examples of plans without angles (especially on the design project days) and for good reason: they aren’t needed!
    I see MollyK’s concern on the google map, but with siting point, I think that we should take into consideration that this area is a revitalization zone. Denver is known for its parking lots, and Denver is making a lot of progress to deal with them. One way is the expansion of public transit routes and especially in this area, the provision of a public bike rental program similar to those in Montreal and Paris (I think Montreal’s are called Bixi). So just because you have a view of a parking lot does not mean that you shouldn’t buy the unit.
    I think that the option of the elevator is a very good idea for 2 reasons: 1) because the typical situation is that revitalization zones are occupied by a limited social type – affluent, educated young adults – and to create accessible homes for both seniors and persons with disabilities alike is a thoughtful thing to do urbanistically; and 2) because a Slow Home is a home you’d want to live in for longer, when I’m older I definitely would like to have the option. That said, I don’t know if either unit works the elevator into the plan very efficiently…
    So both of these units are pretty good options. On the one hand the smaller unit has less circulation space, but it also has more tight spots. The larger unit has more circulation space, and a lot of left over space that you can’t really use but you are definitely paying for. I’m going to say that the smaller, tighter unit is better only because it is less wasteful. Opposite to Manolo, I think that this one has much better potential for a good renovation because the staircase isn’t as obtrusive. Imagine renovating the larger one – every decision involves that funky stair angle! Also, the study point taken off here and yet given to the larger unit is a misnomer. The larger unit doesn’t even have one, so it gets the point de-facto. The smaller unit’s study wouldn’t actually be used and you’d more likely put it where the optional elevator comes up next to the kitchen.

  • Matthew North

    Terri – I second your complaint about the powder rooms! What is up with the powder rooms in Denver? Not only are a lot of them right adjacent to the dining room or kitchen, but I was scrolling through the posted town home plans last night and saw several where the laundry machines were actually inside the powder room and as one Slow Homer commented, you basically had to sit on the toilet to do the laundry!